GOP Rep Goes Full RINO, Smears Trump In Disgusting Interview

One phrase—“Epstein administration”—turned a fight over document redactions into a stress test for Republican trust in its own Justice Department.

Quick Take

Rep. Thomas Massie used a national TV interview to hammer Attorney General Pam Bondi over the DOJ’s handling of newly released Epstein-related records.
The DOJ release involved more than 3 million pages, but the real fight centered on what stayed hidden: redactions, internal memos, and charging decisions.
Bondi defended process and privacy concerns while Massie pushed for fuller disclosure, arguing elites still get protected treatment.
The dispute widened into an intra-GOP fracture, with Trump defending Bondi as Massie escalated rhetoric and demanded receipts.

Massie’s “Epstein administration” line and why it detonated

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) went on ABC’s “This Week” on February 15, 2026, and branded the Trump administration the “Epstein administration” while criticizing Attorney General Pam Bondi’s performance at a recent House Judiciary hearing. That label carried obvious heat, but the argument underneath was procedural: Massie said the DOJ’s Epstein-file rollout still shields powerful people through redactions and withheld internal communications. ABC’s host clarified he alleged no criminality by Trump.

Massie’s strategy fused two messages that don’t always coexist: populist suspicion of billionaires and institutional insistence on transparent government. He argued the administration surrounds itself with an “Epstein class” of wealthy insiders and then runs the justice system like a gated community. Conservatives who value clean government hear the appeal. Conservatives who value party unity hear a flamethrower. The tension isn’t theoretical; it changes what voters think “accountability” means.

The 3-million-page release that still left everyone angry

The DOJ’s release of more than 3 million pages created the impression of a floodlight, yet the hearing that followed exposed how selective disclosure can feel like darkness. Lawmakers pressed Bondi on redactions and on how the department balanced victim privacy against public interest. Massie highlighted moments where names were unredacted after he challenged the department, framing it as proof the system can move fast when publicly cornered.

Bondi’s posture, as described in reporting, didn’t calm the room. She defended DOJ decisions, sparred with lawmakers, and faced criticism over survivor-facing optics. The political problem for any attorney general in this arena is that “we’re following procedures” sounds like “we’re running out the clock” to people who think Epstein’s network survived because institutions protected it. The policy problem runs in the opposite direction: reckless disclosure can re-victimize the vulnerable.

What Massie says he wants: internal memos, not just headlines

Massie’s demands went beyond the page dump. He pressed for internal DOJ emails and memos tied to charging decisions and non-prosecutions connected to Epstein’s universe, including scrutiny around high-profile names discussed in the hearing. That request matters because internal records expose the real mechanics of power: who recommended what, who signed off, and what rationale they used. Paper trails either validate the DOJ’s integrity or expose preferential treatment.

The Wexner angle showed how this argument gets messy. A representative for Leslie Wexner has pointed to a 2019 statement indicating he was not a target or co-conspirator, and that he cooperated. For Massie, those assurances are precisely why internal files matter—because official declarations can be correct, incomplete, or strategically narrow. For the DOJ, the challenge is proving decisions were principled without turning every internal deliberation into political fuel.

The Blanch dispute reveals how quickly process fights become character fights

After the hearing, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch publicly accused Massie and Rep. Connor of improper unmasking related to unredacted names, while Massie countered that the names had already been unredacted by DOJ actions. That kind of procedural dispute sounds technical until you translate it: one side implies recklessness or misconduct; the other implies scapegoating to distract from sloppy redactions. In Washington, process accusations often function as moral accusations.

Conservatives should read this carefully and without tribal blinders. Government transparency should not depend on whether a particular Republican is “in good standing” with an administration. At the same time, rhetoric that links a sitting president to Epstein by branding alone, without criminal allegation, risks becoming the mirror image of the smear culture many conservatives say they oppose. Common sense says demand documents, then let documents speak.

Survivors in the room changed the stakes—and the politics

The Judiciary hearing’s most important presence wasn’t a member of Congress or a cabinet official; it was survivors. Their push for justice collides with a justice system that often moves slowly and communicates poorly. Reporting described criticism of Bondi’s approach toward survivors, including claims she refused to face them directly. Optics matter because Epstein’s story isn’t a normal scandal; it’s a moral injury that many Americans believe institutions failed to stop.

That is why the “cold” descriptor Massie used resonates even with people who dislike his “Epstein administration” branding. Americans over 40 have lived through enough official “reviews” and “task forces” to know language can become a substitute for action. The administration’s defense—privacy, due process, careful redaction—can be legitimate, but it must be paired with visible, verifiable follow-through, or public trust erodes again.

What this means for the GOP: transparency versus loyalty is the new litmus test

Trump publicly defended Bondi as “fantastic,” while Massie signaled he lacked confidence in her leadership. That split is the story’s political engine: one faction treats Epstein-file handling as a governance test; the other treats it as a loyalty test during a period of constant attacks. The danger for Republicans is obvious. If voters conclude “full disclosure” only happens when it’s politically convenient, they’ll assume elite protection is bipartisan and permanent.

Thomas Massie Goes Full RINO, Smears President Trump with Disgusting 'Epstein Administration' Label During Interview with Far-Left ABC https://t.co/KdIgP3AYQm #gatewaypundit via @gatewaypundit

— Lois Levine Fishman (@FishmanLevine) February 16, 2026

Massie’s harsh nickname will outlive the Sunday show cycle because it compresses a complicated transparency fight into a single punchy frame. Conservatives who want institutional credibility should insist on the boring stuff: clear redaction standards, timelines for additional releases, and disclosure of decision-making documents when legally possible. If the DOJ can justify its choices, sunlight helps it. If it can’t, sunlight helps the country. Either way, the slogan shouldn’t be the final word.